Among this new generation of enemies of the church, unfortunately, were some of the best and the brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged — including, no less, four princes of the royal house and a son of the high priest.

Well, it looks like Dr. Peterson has got the goods on Dr. Scratch. Now, who are those four princes? Gadianton? Kishkumen? Stakanovite? Stemelbow?

For those who can't or won't go to Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board this is the opening post from william.

Quote:

A couple weeks ago, on the Sunday of the spectacular solar annular eclipse, I also had the opportunity to teach my ward's gospel doctrine class while Dan Peterson and his wife Debbie sat in as guests. Interestingly enough, in light of conversations Dan and I have had over the years, the topic of the lesson was the conversion of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah. As part of the lesson, we read the following passages from the Book of Mormon:

Quote:

Mosiah 27

8 … the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities.

9 And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them.

10 … for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church, and to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God …

I noted the fact that we are often taught that the Book of Mormon was written, not for the people of that day and age, but rather for us, and that its various lessons should be "likened unto" us. Therefore, I posed these questions to the class:

Quote:

We are informed that these apostates among the Nephites went about "secretly … seeking to destroy the church." Are there such people among us today? And, if so, in what manner are they "seeking to destroy the church" and "to lead astray the people of the Lord"? How can we recognize such people? What are their methods and techniques? Once we recognize them, what should we do to combat the things they are doing?

Dan has referenced my lesson and questions in his Mormon Times article today. I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.

Perhaps we think that sometimes those who are undermining the church are always attempting to do it. They display their true colors when they can do it anonymously, but otherwise it's more of a case where the lie in wait to deceive. When an occasion arises to do so, they throw a seed of doubt in here or there.

The danger is that we as a missionary church have many people come in whose testimonies are just in the budding stage, and who are thirsty to learn. Those who seek to destroy the church secretly may simply be seeking to undermine the testimony of the new convert by throwing a casual doubt in here or there. They don't do it with those who have more mature testimonies because, as has been noted, they are more discerning about such things.

We wonder why some converts, who seem so promising, fall away. The secret, flattering, doubt-sowing words of some are one of the causes.

On the Internet itself, those who flatter can be more open. They can post in venues where there is no one to point out what they're doing. Some are very gifted in the language they use, and very convincing.

"We need to be more open about the things we do in the temple.""Other churches have negative perceptions of us that are our fault. We need to change.""Why can't the church apologize for the terrible wrongs its perpetrated on others.""Look how wrong the leaders of the church are in this matter. Maybe they're wrong about other things."

The list is endless. Because of the anonymous nature of the Internet, there are members of the church who need do nothing face to face with others, but who can freely flatter and sow doubts on discussion boards.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with identifying those who do so in such forums and exposing exactly what they are doing.

So basically any member who would like to see a church policy changed or criticizes the church in any way is secretly trying to destroy the church.

Cinepro's reply to Schryver's post is a classic. Click here to read it.

Cinepro made a really good point, although I wonder if it was too subtle for the average Mormon D&D reader to catch. The actual church leaders seem to be more tolerant of free thought than Schryver and Peterson. So who is it that is really the best and the brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged, influencing and manipulating the Saints with the power of their eloquent and flattering words?

_________________It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

Cinepro's reply to Schryver's post is a classic. Click here to read it.

Cinepro made a really good point, although I wonder if it was too subtle for the average Mormon D&D reader to catch. The actual church leaders seem to be more tolerant of free thought than Schryver and Peterson. So who is it that is really the best and the brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged, influencing and manipulating the Saints with the power of their eloquent and flattering words?

The best and the brightest are the ones who figure out the church is not what it claims to be.

Probably John Dehlin, if I had to guess. This is probably a set-up for whatever version of Greg Smith's "hit piece" winds up in the Review.

_________________"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

By the way, have you read Dan Peterson's MT column? What did you think about it?

Yes, I had read it. I think he has written better columns in the past.

He's going to wind up on the "black list," alongside other "fifth columnists" like LoaP and Brian Hauglid.

_________________"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Why have DCP and William Schryver not been disciplined by Church leadership? At this point, these two are in open rebellion against the LDS leadership. I cannot fathom how many members and prospective members the Peterson/Schryver posse have led astray.

Based on some things I've recently read, I suspect such people would try to gain positions in the Church where they could influence the thinking of others, such as teaching, and then look for opportunities to go off-manual and inject their own "gospel hobbies" and spin on things.

To be most effective, they would have to couch their teachings in scripture, so that's the first thing I would look for.

You know the more I read the arguments from this school of thought, the more I'm reminded of the kinds of thinking and rationales used by Evangelicals who see Mormonism as one big false religion foretold in scripture, i.e. false prophets, false Gospels, etc.

In both cases you have a group of people basing their bigotry on a narrow interpretation of scripture.

So how can Dan or anyone else at NAMIR ever claim the Church is tolerant towards former members? You can't claim tolerance while at the same time constantly look down on them with such suspicion as if we're all a bunch of insidious wolves. In their view, we're all potential wolves in sheep's clothing and if any of the sheep commiserate with dissidents, then they should be treated as potential apostates just the same. Dan has no apologetic defense for the so-called "lies and deceptions" coming from these "wolves" so all he can do is scare people away from us by convincing them we're wolves simply because we're vocally opposed to the Church's deceptions.

All those scriptures and conference talks about unconditional love must take the back seat to their personalized interpretation/application of the McCarthyesque scriptures about how the tribe is constantly being attacked by evil and "secret" forces. So if this is their world view, where exactly is there room for tolerance towards ex-Mormons? It seems there is no room at all. Could you imagine the outrageous Dan would express if someone said Muslims were wolves in sheep's clothing? They follow a religion that flat out rejects the atonement of Christ, even his crucifixion, but Dan has room to accept them as brothers because they're part of an Abrahamic faith, and he even has room to consider Muhammed a true Prophet of God using the most convoluted reasoning.

Ultimately it seems Dan and Will think it is more important to live in fear and anoint themselves as protectors of their local tribes by coming up with these whacked out "they're coming to get you" scenarios, than it is to follow the commandments of Christ. You know, commandments like loving your neighbor unconditionally, not judging, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. If they've abandoned so many fundamental teachings of Christ, then I have to become more sympathetic to those Evangelicals who consider them unChristian.

Another point I'd like to make is an important one. William and Dan want to determine the wolves based on nothing more than the fact that they disagree with their apologetics. But what about "by their fruits you shall know them?" Isn't that something we are constantly told by LDS missionaries and LDS leaders? William and Dan think they can identify wolves based on their degree of loyalty, but they ignore the whole "fruits" aspect, and in this case we're talking about honesty. William keeps asserting that people are dragging people away from their tribe by lying to them, but the fact is William is a compulsive liar. Every year I find more and more people leaving MAD to come over here after they've left the fold, and nowhere can William or Dan point to "lies" that were told to get them to leave.

Case in point, the Book of Abraham. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and there wasn't a single "lie" involved from the critics. Instead, I got tons of lies from people like John Gee and William Schryver. If I were a devout Christian, then I'd have to conclude immediately that these "fruits" prove that it is they who are being deceptive and leading spiritual people down a dangerous ideological road. Not the other way around.

Of course I'm always willing to debate and prove the fact that William and his apologist buddies flat out lie on these matters, but they do not have the integrity to face criticism, and have to hide out at MAD where the mods instaban people for pointing out their dishonesty.

Probably John Dehlin, if I had to guess. This is probably a set-up for whatever version of Greg Smith's "hit piece" winds up in the Review.

I had another person in mind too. Quinn?

_________________when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

Wow, I'm impressed that Volgadon is standing his ground:...He's going to wind up on the "black list," alongside other "fifth columnists" like LoaP and Brian Hauglid.

Volgadon is an awesome fellow. Any group that loses his voice, just plain loses.

_________________"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81

I agree. Frankly, this is pretty scary stuff all around. I have a certain sympathy for the desire to hold to standards and not cave in to the latest fashions, etc., but I really part ways with Daniel Peterson at the point where he implicitly advocates a creepy new McCarthyism in the LDS Church:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

This wasn't just a falling or a drifting away. It was a knowing, conscious revolt. But it was also clandestine, surreptitious, sneaky. Alma "did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church" (27:10). It's very doubtful, though, that they would have openly admitted that their goal was "to destroy the church." Perhaps they wouldn't even have admitted it to themselves.

Look at what he is saying: these people consciously revolt, but they are sneaky, so sneaky in fact that they might not be able to admit their revolt to themselves.

Uh, what? Hold on just a sec there, pard. Either they are consciously rebelling or they are simply confused; they are not unconsciously devious. This is the kind of language that truly breeds Inquisitions, where you draw the conclusion that your enemy is under the influence of an evil so subtle that the only way you can disabuse him of his folly is by aggressively pushing him in some way, say by ecclesiastical discipline or, dare I say, torture.

No one should want to take any credit for cooking up this disturbing nonsense.

Look at what he is saying: these people consciously revolt, but they are sneaky, so sneaky in fact that they might not be able to admit their revolt to themselves..

Perhaps he doesn't know what consciously means.

(I still smell a Quinn thing here)

_________________when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie